Forget compromise or I don't know who should back down? - Sports Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Forget compromise or I don't know who should back down? - Sports Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Forget compromise or I don't know who should back down?  (Read 1110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18241
O.P. « 2017-Jul-12, 06:10 PM »
ACA Aust cricketers

CA.  Cricket Australia


Discussion  welcomed.

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25620
« 2017-Jul-12, 06:12 PM Reply #1 »
Im on the side of CA

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12209
« 2017-Jul-12, 07:49 PM Reply #2 »
Nothing is ever black or white ..... the truth (or answer) will lay somewhere in the middle.

Both need a good spanking for allowing it to get this far.

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18241
« 2017-Jul-12, 08:01 PM Reply #3 »
Hang on.

I posed the question and misread it and voted the wrong way.

And I did it without a drink.

What a goose!!!!!

No more voting.

I'm deleting this tomorrow


 :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed:

Online Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 7795
« 2017-Jul-12, 08:14 PM Reply #4 »
Hang on.

I posed the question and misread it and voted the wrong way.

And I did it without a drink.

What a goose!!!!!

No more voting.

I'm deleting this tomorrow


 :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed: :embarrassed:

Never a more accurate phrase has been posted on this forum

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18241
« 2017-Jul-13, 08:19 AM Reply #5 »
I won't delete it.

But whoever looks at the voting note that I voted the cricketers should back down.

They shouldn't.

They have God on their side.

CA should back down and as a Board member Mark Taylor should hang hi head in shame.

AS a player he negotiated for the players to share in windfall gains but now he aligns himself with CA who want the windfall gains to be share around amongst themselves and administrators  using their concerns (sic) for "grassroots of the game" as their fig leaf.

A bloody disgrace and more strength to the arms of the highly paid players who refused the bribes and didn't negotiate for themselves but instead held out for decent pay for the not-so-well-known players.

I'm disappointed with you Wily.
   

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31143
« 2017-Jul-13, 10:45 AM Reply #6 »
Anybody know what John Howard thinks of this situation ?

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18241
« 2017-Jul-13, 11:05 AM Reply #7 »
Anybody know what John Howard thinks of this situation ?

He'd get Peter Reith to arrange for Patricks to organise strike-breaking cricketers from Dubai to play for the Ashes.

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25620
« 2017-Jul-13, 06:33 PM Reply #8 »
I'm disappointed with you Wily.
   

There are times when Imam as well  :lol:


In saying that. Since the original pay scale was put in place the goal posts have moved. Of great concern is the uncertainty about the next Tv deal so I wouldn't be too harsh on Tubbys change of position and CA needs to plan for the future. A % share makes that impossible

The players are massively rewarded. Wages are staggered img even for shield cricketers

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4360
« 2017-Jul-13, 07:56 PM Reply #9 »


We do not care about this here -- we watch racing.

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18241
« 2017-Jul-13, 08:12 PM Reply #10 »
Wily

As I said the top players aren't after more money for themselves. They are arguing for the lower tier players.

Peter
Bite yer bum.

Some of us have more than one interest. We are multifaceted

And if you haven't noticed this was posted on the Sports section of the forum.

 

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18241
« 2017-Jul-13, 08:24 PM Reply #11 »
News just in

Cricket pay dispute: Players' Association slams Cricket Australia's David Peever over sabotage suggestion

By Damian McIver

Posted about 2 hours ago


The Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA) has hit back at Cricket Australia (CA) chairman David Peever, saying his intervention into the pay dispute has done "nothing to further any progress" in finding a resolution.

Peever has written a column in The Australian newspaper, defending CA's approach to the pay negotiations and criticising the ACA for being "reckless".

Negotiations to resolve the impasse are continuing, with 230 cricketers out of contract, while doubt has been cast on upcoming tours of Bangladesh and India, as well as this summer's Ashes series.

"The imputation that the players and the ACA are sabotaging the game is wrong," the ACA said in a statement.

The parties are at odds over CA's attempt to dismantle a fixed-revenue-sharing system of player payments, which has been in place for the last two decades.

Critics of Peever say he is motivated by an ideological, anti-union agenda, but he dismisses the suggestion, saying it is "a myth, and deeply insulting to many people across the cricket spectrum".

Peever is a former managing director of Rio Tinto's Australian operations and he once made a speech publicly campaigning for "direct engagement between companies and employees … without the competing agenda of a third party, constantly seeking to extend its reach into areas best left to management".

Many observers see the fingerprints of this philosophy in CA's approach to the current pay dispute, particularly in its attempts to bypass the ACA and offer senior players individual contract offers.

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31143
« 2017-Jul-15, 10:47 AM Reply #12 »

Marshall McLuhan’s contention that “the medium is the message” remains so beloved of opinion page pundits that it’s overdue a run in the sports pages. And this week’s contribution to the game’s pay dispute by Cricket Australia chairman David Peever could hardly be improved on as an illustration.

For those who dimly recollect a McLuhan bowling seam-up for Western Suburbs or playing on the half-forward flank for Carlton, he was a Canadian philosopher who argued that the form of a message is every bit as significant as its content.

And that, in a dispute as much about authority as it is money, should guide our interpretation of Peever’s having his say via a column published in this newspaper yesterday: that is, he chose not to appear, not to answer questions, not to incur the risk of interruption or contradiction, but simply to publish, in order to control.

Peever said some things — we’ll get to those. Yet the step itself was almost as self-revelatory as the moment a couple of months ago when CA condemned the Australian Cricketers Association for issuing a press release by issuing a press release.

So what did Peever say? Alas, not much. The first four paragraphs foamed with indignation — “most tawdry”, “complete myth”, “deeply insulting”, “deliberately fabricated”, “disrespects all those involved across the cricket community” — about the role of ACA adviser Greg Combet in portraying cricket as “an industrial relations battleground”.

Well, heaven forfend that one should perceive a collective bargaining agreement as having anything to do with industrial relations. But to quote Peever: “The suggestion that CA’s push to modify the player payments model has nothing to do with genuine issues facing the game is an insult to everyone involved at CA, including other members of the board. It is also an insult to all those from across the state and territory associations who understand and support the need for change.”

Goodness me — everyone’s so insulted. But this is the vigorous threshing of a straw man. Precisely nobody says the dispute has “nothing to do with genuine issues facing the game”; they merely sniff the unmistakeable bouquet of bullshit when CA insists that this is all the dispute is about.

“I recognise the place of collective bargaining,” Peever continues proleptically, “and I accept the industrial relations framework in Australia.”

Yet this is a bit like saying that he recognises the place of the speed limit and accepts the custom of driving on the left-hand side of the road.

All anyone worth listening to in this debate has argued — as my colleague Peter Lalor did recently — is that the relationship of the professional athlete to modern sport makes a problematic fit with the conventional relationship of employee to employer because the athlete represents both producer and product.

It’s a simple enough idea. CA has acquiesced in it for 20 years by paying cricketers out of a share of revenue. Those cricketers are entitled to ask what has changed, especially when they see athletes in other competitions, rightly or wrongly, agitating for similar ­status.

In one respect, I’m inclined to agree with Peever. His merely having worked for Rio Tinto should not make of CA a “union basher”. But what CA is doing is behaving as a monopoly. And of monopolies a wariness is always justified, especially when they assert their market power, as CA has in escalating this dispute.

Not that you’d guess this from the victimhood that oozes from Peever’s screed. By his account, CA has always respected the ACA; it has been “very generous”; it has endured a campaign against it of “sustained ferocity” waged by others with a “reckless strategy”.

Yet an express principle of CA’s proposal, unchanged from the very beginning, was that it cease to provide funding for the ACA — a hitherto uncontroversial convention, in recognition of the union covering 100 per cent of Australia’s male and female international and domestic cricketers. What could have been more adversarial?

As for CA’s generosity, its proposed package, stripped of payroll tax, rolled-over adjustment ledger and pie-eyed prizemoney projections then stretched across a greater number of players reflecting the inclusion of women, actually looks a bit parsimonious.

Finally, who did what to whom? For even if one accepted every other aspect of Peever’s position — and of his commitment to grassroots cricket I would never doubt his sincerity — it is CA that has kept turning up the dial in this dispute. It is CA that attempted to turn the top international cricketers against the rest by seeking to buy the former off with turbocharged rewards.

It is CA that has tried to turn female cricketers against male, with, among other things, an attempt last week to make a big deal out of the last adjustment ledger that was lamer than a three-­legged dog.

It is CA that has sought to turn grassroots cricket against elite cricketers — an entirely bizarre gambit when the success of both are so strongly linked.

And in the end it was CA that walked away from the cricketers, not the other way around, that terminated their relations with extreme prejudice, that isn’t paying them now, that won’t backpay them ever, that opposes them pursuing their livelihoods anywhere else.

In instituting the lockup, CA also caused the players’ intellectual property to revert to the ACA. Yet Peever now criticises the ACA for its decision to “lock up player IP into its own business ventures”. Precisely what was the ACA meant to do? Put it in the fridge?

To surrender something so valuable was the very definition of a “reckless strategy”. And CA’s commercial and broadcasting partners will, one imagines, be letting it know.

In the meantime, players have demonstrated their good faith by continuing to train, keeping their own counsel, and hoping for resolution, while CA have gone on blaming everyone but themselves. And while the message of Peever’s communique yesterday may have strained for the odd conciliatory sentiment, the medium tells otherwise — that CA remains no closer to understanding how clumsily it has gone about its work.



BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap